Bombay High Court Awards Rs. 5 Lakh for Illegal Arrest, Orders Action Against Police, Magistrate  ||  Bombay High Court Sets Aside FIR Against Pune College Staff Over Murud Beach Tragedy  ||  Bombay High Court Proposes Forfeiting Rehab Homes of Slum Dwellers Dumping Garbage on Roads  ||  J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Rs. 10K Cost on Senior Advocate, Says Heated Exchanges are Common  ||  Gujarat HC Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Mother-in-Law as Complainant’s Earlier Marriage Subsisted  ||  Supreme Court Stays Kerala FIR Probe Against Ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan, Kin for 10 Days  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Can Intervene When Free and Fair Elections are Tainted by Illegal Means  ||  Delhi HC: CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka Withdraw Plea Against Judicial Custody  ||  Bombay HC Fines Junior Advocate Rs. 25K, Clerk Rs. 10K for Unauthorised Court Video Recording  ||  Bombay HC Expresses Concern as Mumbai Surpasses Delhi in Pollution Levels    

Bharatkumar J. Patel (Prop. of Gurumangalam International) vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Ahmedabad - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (27 Jul 2022)

Certificate from Collector has to be placed by the assessee to determine that particular land comes under the urban land or agricultural land

MANU/IB/0490/2022

Direct Taxation

The assessee is an individual derives income by way of rent, interest and agriculture etc. The assessee filed return of net wealth for A.Y. 2010-11 declaring net wealth of Rs.1,39,11,000. The Assessing Officer observed that, the assessee had not included the urban land cost of Rs.2,12,98,200 and cash in hand of Rs.1,25,400 after exemption of Rs.50,000 for wealth chargeable to Wealth Tax.

The Assessing Officer observed that, the assessee had understated the wealth by treating the land at Vastrapur and Rancharda as non-urban land. The notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was issued. The assessment was reopened after recording reasons as per the observations of the Assessing Officer. The assessee could not submit his objection to the validity of reopening as reasons recorded for reopening were not furnished to the assessee as per the contentions of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that both the said lands were non-urban land and exempt under Section 2(ea)(v) of Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer concluded that the said lands were urban land and as such its value aggregating to Rs.2,12,98,200 was brought to tax. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A )dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

It is pertinent to note that, the said land and the details given by the assessee were only related to Talati Certificate which is undated. The other documents are not showing that the said land were not coming under the urban land definition. The reopening is valid which is also reiterated by the CIT(A).

The lands at Vastrapur and Rancharda were coming under the definition of urban land under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act as the documents which were produced before the Revenue Authorities and before present Tribunal clearly does not state that, these are agricultural land. The assessee contended that these are agricultural land as per the records of the Government but only document which was on record is related to Talati Certificate which is undated and is not specifying the period of agricultural activity or not specifying the agricultural produce on the said land. Whether any land comes under the urban land or agricultural land, the certificate from Collector should have been placed by the assessee but since the assessee failed to do so, it is clear that the said land is urban land and, therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly made wealth tax addition towards both of these lands. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Tags : WEALTH TAX   ADDITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved